Can someone explain this to me?

I am confused and downright dumbfounded in the constant posting on this forum and others about how the president is going to take away our guns. I just don't see how that is possible at all.First, the Second Amendment gives the right to bear arms, which is considered set in stone, but has to be reaffirmed by,Second, the US Supreme Court has reaffirmed that individuals have the right to own a gun of some form(barring certain bans such as the machine gun ban in California) and certain gun bans were found unconstitutional.Third, Congress is divided but that is not the only problem I see with this fear: there is no political will by either party to enact any sort of legislation that will overturn the Second Amendment and any sort of gun control legislation is DOA.Fourth, the president has to abide by the Constitution and any part upheld in one form or another by the Supreme Court he is bound by that ruling, he cannot circumvent that.And finally, people will not allow that to happen. To do so would cause another civil war and this time, the United States of America would collapse as a result.So, does anyone know the answer or do I know it already?
--------------------------------Something stinks and it ain't me. E-thugs: always looking for a fight, no matter how meaningless.I drank all of RL's rum.

I know it is fear mongering but why does this keep going when what I posted keeps the government from even trying to take away guns?Is it because the NRA keeps saying that?
--------------------------------Something stinks and it ain't me. E-thugs: always looking for a fight, no matter how meaningless.I drank all of RL's rum.

I'm an independent who supports the second amendment. You bet your ass I would take up arms against the government. They can pry my gun from my cold, dead hand.
------------------"If you do what you love you'll never work a day in your life." -Roti

I was hoping more of our conservative posters on here had an answer to my question. Guess they don't want to say the president can't.
--------------------------------Something stinks and it ain't me. E-thugs: always looking for a fight, no matter how meaningless.I drank all of RL's rum.

Actually the concern with Obama being reelected is that there are ways for the federal government to come after our guns without enacting new legislation. He has already appointed two Supreme Court justices who have said that they don't agree that the 2nd Amendment protects the INDIVIDUALS right to own firearms. Their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it protects the militias right to keep arms. As the recent firearms decisions by the SCOTUS have been 5-4 decisions in favor of the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms we can see that the Constitution has been upheld, though only by the thinnest of margins. If Obama appoints another justice during the next four years it is likely they will be a liberal minded justice who also doesn't believe that the 2nd Amendment protects the individuals right to own guns. Based on that any future gun rights lawsuits that make it to the SCOTUS will likely erode the Constitutional protections that we currently have.

Frankly with Congress divided you are correct to think that Obama would not be able to get much in the way of anti-gun legislation passed. But the inability to pass legislation may not be enough to keep him from enacting regulations that achieve the same purpose. We have already seen in his first term the attempt to institute reporting of multi-gun purchases through BATFE regulations. If the administration decides to promulgate strict regulations on purchases and manufacturing through BATFE it is possible that the SCOTUS could uphold them even if they significantly infringe on the individuals right to keep and bear arms.

The next SCOTUS nomination will not be that liberal. Republicans in the House and Senate would filibuster any candidate that would even slightly mention upholding the rights of militia's to bear arms.BTW, militias have no place in modern USA. I know that when the US was first getting started, militias were vital to the security of the states but, the Civil War was over 150 years ago and militias are not needed anymore. That is why I don't see why there is still the fear of getting guns taken away, because the SCOTUS will uphold the individual mandate.Also, any sort of regulations, either through Congress or executive orders, are still subject to review by the legal system if anyone sues to block said regulations.
--------------------------------Something stinks and it ain't me. E-thugs: always looking for a fight, no matter how meaningless.I drank all of RL's rum.

Zoomin:Conservative posters have dropped off the face of the forums the past couple days. I don't know why, but they have.

They are probably annoyed with a moderator who seems to relish rubbing it in their face in defeat. I must say the moderator as acted like quite the fool given how ecstatically he has been cheering for the lesser of two evils.

In all seriousness, I know I've been short with you but you have to admit you are being an ass with respect to this election. Watch the 2008 Southpark episode. Randy and you are going hand in hand

Me, well I'm just mad that Democrats are dumb enough to think that Obama is really good enough. We only won because the other guy is that much more pathetic.

The gay rights stuff is fine but really most people don't care. That's why we are OK with it, we don't care. We don't really want to hear about it either.
_______________________________DSG, it's got two clutches. It's even MORE manual.

*Enberliner - we understand that many dumb people on this forum have said many dumb things and you like to quote them. You can not quote people directly even if they don't know what a V6 is or used to XloveX Ford and hate Toyota but now can't figure out XwhichX they like. Deal with it - the management.*

Primus:The next SCOTUS nomination will not be that liberal. Republicans in the House and Senate would filibuster any candidate that would even slightly mention upholding the rights of militia's to bear arms.BTW, militias have no place in modern USA. I know that when the US was first getting started, militias were vital to the security of the states but, the Civil War was over 150 years ago and militias are not needed anymore. That is why I don't see why there is still the fear of getting guns taken away, because the SCOTUS will uphold the individual mandate.Also, any sort of regulations, either through Congress or executive orders, are still subject to review by the legal system if anyone sues to block said regulations.

Sotomayer has stated that her interpretation of the Second Amendment is that the preamble "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." indicates that this protection was put in the Constitution to protect the right of the government to arm a military and gives no rights to the individual. Her interpretation which she has stated publicly is that the only people who have a right to bear arms are those in a well regulated militia (read National Guard members). In fact here the dissent from the majority in McDonald v. Chicago written by justice Breyer and co-signed by Sotomayer and Ginsburg: "In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self defense."The full dissenting opinion can be seen here:http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZD1.html

So we have 3 justices who clearly believe that the 2nd Amendment does not extend its protections to the individual. As McDonald was a 5-4 decision, another justice felt the 2nd Amendment does not provide protections in this case though their legal reasonings are obviously different. If a single conservative justice retires and Obama appoints another you can be assured they will be a liberal in the vein of Sotomayer and Kagan. Based on the fact that 3 justices have already argued to overturn Heller v. D.C. in their dissent on the McDonald case it is very obvious that our current Constitutional protections are quite literally hanging by a thread.

So to look at your points:- "Republicans would filibuster any candidate..." - Sotomayer in her nomination testimony stated "I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller." In her first 2nd Amendment case she argued that Heller should be overturned and specifically stated that there is NO individual right to self defense. There is nothing to prevent a SCOTUS nominee from lying at the Senate confirmation hearing. As far as filibustering, the House has no say in the confirmation hearing. In the Senate though the Republicans probably have the numbers necessary to maintain a filibuster there are procedural avenues that may be able to overcome a filibuster. And lets not forget the propensity of politicians to trade votes no matter how short sighted that may be.

- "militias have no place in the modern USA." - Some of the justices interpret the Constitutional phrase "a well regulated militia" to mean the National Guard.

- "SCOTUS will uphold the individual mandate" - Three justices have stated in their dissenting opinion that there is NO individual right to own guns. A fourth didn't join that particular dissent, though the reasoning doesn't matter, they voted against the right to bear arms.

- "any regulations are subject to judicial review" - Correct, and if they get to the Supreme Court and there is even one more justice who doesn't believe the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms we just lost what the Founding Fathers thought was the second most important right of the citizens.

Zoomin:Conservative posters have dropped off the face of the forums the past couple days. I don't know why, but they have.

Enberliner:They are probably annoyed with a moderator who seems to relish rubbing it in their face in defeat. I must say the moderator as acted like quite the fool given how ecstatically he has been cheering for the lesser of two evils.

In all seriousness, I know I've been short with you but you have to admit you are being an ass with respect to this election. Watch the 2008 Southpark episode. Randy and you are going hand in hand

Me, well I'm just mad that Democrats are dumb enough to think that Obama is really good enough. We only won because the other guy is that much more pathetic.

The gay rights stuff is fine but really most people don't care. That's why we are OK with it, we don't care. We don't really want to hear about it either.

I got into it with a conservative Ill take it up with you now! If you think that Obama is not right for the job, YOU RUN FOR PRESIDENT! This is a free Democratic country you live in. Instead of bitchin and moaning about how terrible your leaders are, YOU make the difference. YOU can run for office. Yeah YOU! Dont give me BS about how you need money or how you need to be connected or whatever BS you are about to spew. If its difficult to run for President, start small and become mayor in your town or run for senate or something. Become a lawyer, then federal judge and graduate to become a Supreme Court Judge. JUST DONT COMPLAIN. TALK IS CHEAP. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS. All talk and no action means YOU are DUMB!!!Lesser of two evils. BS! BS! BS! Its a freakin Democracy you live in. VOICE YOUR OPINION WHERE IT COUNTS! And if that doesnt work. RUN FOR OFFICE. If that doesnt work. Find someone that has your ideals and back him up. JUST DONT FIND EXCUSES. That doesnt work either!If you are not going to voice your opinion to where it counts, then you have no right to complain about it over and over and over again.Living in a Democracy gives you the right to change what YOU dont like about YOUR government. Get off your lazy ass and CHANGE what doesnt work for you!But how can you change what doesnt work for you when bitchin about it is sooooo much easier!